4 ms·

>If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand? I have no idea what part of my po

>If you invade somewhere to take it over against the wishes of the locals, that's aggressive. How is that hard to understand? I have no idea what part of my post made it seem like I wouldn't find an invasion aggressive, it clearly would be. I wasn't discussing an invasion at all.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Then I clearly misunderstood this line: > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. Would you explain what you meant by it? (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Yes, kind of, but also no. Yes, it riles up the empire. They don't like it. They certainly regard it as a hostile, aggressive act. But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. It makes it more expensive (perhaps prohibitively so) for the empire to conquer the other country. That's only "aggressive" if the empire was intending to conquer the other country, and only because it removed from them an option that they really wanted to use. They don't lose a foot of ground. All they lose is the option of themselves invading.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. The fear isn't that the border country tried to invade, the fear is that the country providing the arms will use them as a stockpile to invade. A buildup of arms along the border has been seen as an aggressive provocation for millennia.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Bringing this back to the specific instance at hand: China sees the buildup of arms in Taiwan as a stockpile for the US to invade mainland China? No way. (I mean, yes, they might be paranoid enough to see it that way, but it's completely divorced from reality. There is exactly zero chance that the US would do so. What's much more likely is that they would use it as an excuse to move to "counter US aggression".)
        boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >I mean, yes, they might be paranoid enough to see it that way, but it's completely divorced from reality It began in ~1950, when it had been less than a decade since the latest of the several times the US has invaded China. It's not unreasonable to worry that the US would lead a new Eight Nation Alliance to return the Kuomintang to power. It's less likely now, but it could still be used in some kind of proxy war somewhere like Korea. Arming the border does far more than just prevent China from invading.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Then I clearly misunderstood this line: > I don't understand how the internal government can be the decider over whether it's aggressive. Would you explain what you meant by it? (And, my apologies for the yelling. I in fact thought that you were saying that an invasion would not be aggression, which... yeah. We both agree that such an idea is wrong.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
That providing substantial military support to a nation bordering an empire is an aggressive act no matter the form of government the border nation has.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Yes, kind of, but also no. Yes, it riles up the empire. They don't like it. They certainly regard it as a hostile, aggressive act. But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. It makes it more expensive (perhaps prohibitively so) for the empire to conquer the other country. That's only "aggressive" if the empire was intending to conquer the other country, and only because it removed from them an option that they really wanted to use. They don't lose a foot of ground. All they lose is the option of themselves invading.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >But you're not providing enough military support for the smaller nation to invade and conquer the empire. The fear isn't that the border country tried to invade, the fear is that the country providing the arms will use them as a stockpile to invade. A buildup of arms along the border has been seen as an aggressive provocation for millennia.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Bringing this back to the specific instance at hand: China sees the buildup of arms in Taiwan as a stockpile for the US to invade mainland China? No way. (I mean, yes, they might be paranoid enough to see it that way, but it's completely divorced from reality. There is exactly zero chance that the US would do so. What's much more likely is that they would use it as an excuse to move to "counter US aggression".)
      - boomboomsubban 6y ago
        >I mean, yes, they might be paranoid enough to see it that way, but it's completely divorced from reality It began in ~1950, when it had been less than a decade since the latest of the several times the US has invaded China. It's not unreasonable to worry that the US would lead a new Eight Nation Alliance to return the Kuomintang to power. It's less likely now, but it could still be used in some kind of proxy war somewhere like Korea. Arming the border does far more than just prevent China from invading.